What do we think of Nihilism?

If nothing in the whole world and in the universe exists although everything around me feels like real, so my whole life is just an illusion.

What you're describing is more anti-realism than Nihilism. You say it feels real, but if it's an illusion, that necessarily it also feels like an illusion, right? In this framework, the words 'Real' and 'Illusion' are equivalent.

Well. So Nihilism negated the essence of being, the structure knowledge and society, but not the whole existence? is the essence of being not equal to our existence?

This is a problem I have mixed feelings on. I agree to the extent that our lives have no intrinsic value in the universe; we are inconsequential in the scheme of things. Knowing the scale of the universe, it is hard to believe that our lives mean anything intrinsically. In fact, I would say that it is somewhat megalomaniacal to think that we hold some special place in the cosmos, given how underdeveloped and insignificant we are as a species. I guess I would feel differently if I believed that Earth was the only inhabited planet in the universe, because then life would be a special occurrence indeed, and I would be more inclined to believe that life had a purpose. But as things stand, I cannot believe that we are the only intelligent life forms ever to have existed, which almost by definition means that we have no greater purpose in the universe. If life can emerge more than once then it makes it less significant.

What do you mean by 'insignificant'? Despite your charge of megalomania, I think I am quite significant. Sure the universe might be massive, but size seems no reason to call something significant in an existential sense. I think I am significant because I try to be kind to people, which is more than most of the universe does for anyone.

Equivalent, perhaps, but not necessarily equal. Nihilism doesn't negate the essence of being, it simply denies the objectivity of truth. As for society and knowledge, these are constructs - all nihilism claims is that there is no ultimate foundation upon which such constructs may be erected.

I agree with most of what you've written here, but that doesn't make me a nihilist. My significance is definitely subjective, since it is entirely dependent on whomever is making the evaluation. If we observe the universe a hundred years after I die, it is indeed highly unlikely that I or any human will have made a discernible impact on it (from some kind of superlative perspective).

What I don't understand is why that makes me or other humans existentially insignificant. It makes us materially insignificant, I agree, but existentially? That's something different and I don't see a reason to believe that. How much other stuff there is out there that has no impact on anything of importance is, as far as I can see, completely irrelevant.

We might be disagreeing on what would constitute a "meaningful impact". The particulars of the current state of the universe is only meaningful insofar as it's meaningful to something. It makes no sense to talk of "meaningful impact" without the implication that there exists some perspective an impact could affect in a meaningful way. Only conscious creatures have this capability.

The way I understand it, the universe only matters insofar as it affects conscious creatures, e.g., us. Can I affect the universe in such a way that it has significance to conscious creatures? Yes, absolutely. Compared with re-arranging all the stars of Andromeda, which could have no effect on any conscious creature at all, my actions here on earth are orders of magnitude more meaningful. If I want to make a "meaningful impact" in this universe, (excusing my 21st century human understanding of astronomy) planet Earth seems a pretty great place to do it.


I don't think that can really be said to be the point of nihilism. Nihilism, as it seems to me, is that there is no ultimate worth or value in anything. What you describe here - that people are free to assign arbitrary meaning to their own lives - is better termed existentialism.

Perhaps I am missing the point of Nihilism somewhat - my apologies if so. I most definitely am no authority on the whole philosophy; I took note because it seemed to align with my general views, but perhaps I am interpreting it in a way just so that I can call myself a Nihilist haha.

To be honest, I do believe that there is no ultimate value to anything, only the value that I and other people ascribe to it. I think that for anything to have any sort of ultimate/objective value, there must be some standard against which to judge it, and I can't imagine what that standard would be. Humanity will never agree on it, so our sense of value will always vary from person to person. How can we claim that something has any sort of objective worth when someone else can easily claim that they don't value it?

I don't understand how there is a difference between what you termed Existentialism and what is supposedly Nihilism; if Nihilists didn't place any meaning on anything simply because they didn't believe that meaning had an objective foundation, then I would, but I don't think that's what it's about?

It can be an attractive sounding philosophy to be fair. When I identified as a nihilist, it seemed to justify my disaffection with the world, which I imagine is what makes it fashionable to people harbouring feelings of disaffection.


I agree that there is no value except what that value means to people. All value is, is the contemplation of the significance of a loss or gain of a given thing, from a given perspective. Value cannot exist independently from subjectivity, but I don't see that as quite the same thing as saying there are no things that are objectively valuable. When I say "objectively valuable", I don't mean "valuable from an objective perspective", as this is self-contradictory, but rather, "valuable from all possible perspectives". Well-being is one such thing. To any given perspective, its own well-being is inherently valuable. It's a tautological implication that well-being is good to the perspective experiencing it. In this way, it makes sense to me to call it objectively valuable, as it can only exist in a valuable way - it is always, to some degree, valuable. This is what formed the basis of my philosophy and led me to reject nihilism.


There's a slight distinction between the two. Existential nihilism rejects all meaning to existence as invalid; existentialism permits a given (arbitrary) meaning as valid, so long as it is found meaningful to the subject. The difference is whether or not you believe subjective valuation of meaning is enough to justify it existentially. Personally I could never agree with existentialism, since it would seem to justify anything as meaningful, so long as a person had been duped into believing it to be. This makes it seem suspect to me.

Okay, I agree with you to an extent there - self preservation is definitely valuable to all life from their own perspective; it is prudent and evolutionary. However it is not valuable from all possible perspectives - the lion does not value the well being of the impala it is hunting, does it? Do we value the well being of the animals we eat? Sure, we don't want to be cruel and we don't want unnecessary slaughter, but do we value their well being above our own? We are in the privileged situation that as an advanced species we are well fed enough to be able to feel compassion and value for the things we eat. I don't think it's fair to say that all life is valuable from all perspectives. since all life will act to ensure the continuation of it's OWN species.

I agree wholeheartedly that all value is subjective, but to me it just seems that this is simply restating the main Nihilistic philosophy; life has no objective meaning. I think the main difference in our opinion here is the way we look at the word "objective" and our general outlook on Nihilism as a philosophy. I personally don't view it as a particularly hopeless philosophy, and I certainly don't harbour views of disaffection. I can see how it could be interpreted as such by those who did have those feelings though, so perhaps it should be viewed with caution and healthy skepticism. I don't really see the point of trying to justify LIFE existentially, since I don't believe it's truly possible. Sure we can justify the things we do to stay alive, and the things we invent/discover as the pursuit of greater quality of life, but justifying life itself? I don't see how it's possible.

There's also the very real and likely possibility that I'm not a true Nihilist and am actually, as you say, an Existentialist or something else, and am misinterpreting elements of the philosophy.

I'm not claiming "all life is valuable from all perspectives" - this is provably wrong. I said, "To any given perspective, its own well-being is inherently valuable."


It's not a restatement of nihilist philosophy. There are other differences also, but this is where they differ on the validity of personal, subjective interpretations of life's meaning. Existentialism says they are valid, nihilism says they are invalid.

Okay - I see your point - well made. So Nihilism argues that not only is all life objectively meaningless, it also suggests that any subjective value you place on it is also invalid? I had always thought it simply drew the line at "objectively meaningless" and accepted that it made sense to construct your own feelings about it. My mistake.

So would you perhaps argue that you are somewhere between existentialism and nihilism? Since earlier you stated that existentialism allows you go justify the meaning of anything with by how you value it personally, whereas nihilism is the other extreme?